Home Off Topic

Will we see a replacement Supreme Court Justice before January 20th?

1567810

Replies

  • LostconchLostconch Posts: 762 Officer
    kellercl said:
    cadman said:
    I think a bigger issue for the left is one they won't admit. That is gun control. 
    There is zero chance of gun restrictions with a conservative court. 

    There is little chance regardless of the court leanings.  The second amendment is pretty clear.  Any major gun control will need to happen via amendments, which is a power via congress.
    Don't forget the Clinton assault weapons ban
    It could happen again with a activist court
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,356 Admiral
    Clinton wasn't a justice.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,592 AG
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I wonder if anyone here themselves, or someone they care about needs coverage for pre-existing conditions?

    Careful what you wish for. 
    Why?
    Supreme court will decide pre-existing doesn't have to be covered?  Not sure.  
    Correct.

    It's fine to want change, just be honest about just what that means. This matter is currently before the court, and there is currently no plan in place to address this problem should the court side with the government.  

    So, like I said, I wonder how many here, or someone they love depends on coverage for a pre-existing condition?
    Only advice I have it to lead a healthy life style and hope for good genetics.  Because healthcare isn't in the business of helping.
    At least your honest, though I wonder if you would be so consistently callous should a condition befall one of your loved ones since these conditions can manifest at even a young age.  

    I'm sure you will just stand by and explain to them that you support your insurance company dropping them, and it's just too bad. 
    Before the meddling most insurances covered most preexisting conditions, for less money. 
        Now insurance has to cover your hysterectomy and it’ll cost you a fortune. Forever. 
     As a business model, ( one I’ve never cared for), insurance has been broken badly. I just don’t see how it gets better unless it returns to real capitalism and free choice.
       I say that as a guy with preexisting conditions, insurance didn’t cost that much before the one size fits all mandates.
    The question I have always asked is, why can’t the private sector have the same health insurance plan’s  as the federal government employees?
    You can. It depends on if you get insurance through your employer or on your own and how much you want to spend. 

    Most employers are going to cheaper plans to save money and most people look at price when buying. 
    No you cannot. 
     If you are a federal worker you can transfer from one department to another and also transfer to another state and there’s no change in your coverage. 
     Why can’t all paper companies for instance, pool all of their employees and families and do the same?? A Georgia Pacific employee has the same as a International Paper employee etc. 
     And can go from state to state. 
    You go from federal to state job your insurance will change. From state to state it changes. 

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • jetmechjetmech On the coastPosts: 461 Deckhand
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I wonder if anyone here themselves, or someone they care about needs coverage for pre-existing conditions?

    Careful what you wish for. 
    Why?
    Supreme court will decide pre-existing doesn't have to be covered?  Not sure.  
    Correct.

    It's fine to want change, just be honest about just what that means. This matter is currently before the court, and there is currently no plan in place to address this problem should the court side with the government.  

    So, like I said, I wonder how many here, or someone they love depends on coverage for a pre-existing condition?
    Only advice I have it to lead a healthy life style and hope for good genetics.  Because healthcare isn't in the business of helping.
    At least your honest, though I wonder if you would be so consistently callous should a condition befall one of your loved ones since these conditions can manifest at even a young age.  

    I'm sure you will just stand by and explain to them that you support your insurance company dropping them, and it's just too bad. 
    Before the meddling most insurances covered most preexisting conditions, for less money. 
        Now insurance has to cover your hysterectomy and it’ll cost you a fortune. Forever. 
     As a business model, ( one I’ve never cared for), insurance has been broken badly. I just don’t see how it gets better unless it returns to real capitalism and free choice.
       I say that as a guy with preexisting conditions, insurance didn’t cost that much before the one size fits all mandates.
    The question I have always asked is, why can’t the private sector have the same health insurance plan’s  as the federal government employees?
    You can. It depends on if you get insurance through your employer or on your own and how much you want to spend. 

    Most employers are going to cheaper plans to save money and most people look at price when buying. 
    No you cannot. 
     If you are a federal worker you can transfer from one department to another and also transfer to another state and there’s no change in your coverage. 
     Why can’t all paper companies for instance, pool all of their employees and families and do the same?? A Georgia Pacific employee has the same as a International Paper employee etc. 
     And can go from state to state. 
    You go from federal to state job your insurance will change. From state to state it changes. 
    That’s true. I meant as a federal employee you get transferred to another state and another department nothing changes. 
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,356 Admiral
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I wonder if anyone here themselves, or someone they care about needs coverage for pre-existing conditions?

    Careful what you wish for. 
    Why?
    Supreme court will decide pre-existing doesn't have to be covered?  Not sure.  
    Correct.

    It's fine to want change, just be honest about just what that means. This matter is currently before the court, and there is currently no plan in place to address this problem should the court side with the government.  

    So, like I said, I wonder how many here, or someone they love depends on coverage for a pre-existing condition?
    Only advice I have it to lead a healthy life style and hope for good genetics.  Because healthcare isn't in the business of helping.
    At least your honest, though I wonder if you would be so consistently callous should a condition befall one of your loved ones since these conditions can manifest at even a young age.  

    I'm sure you will just stand by and explain to them that you support your insurance company dropping them, and it's just too bad. 
    Before the meddling most insurances covered most preexisting conditions, for less money. 
        Now insurance has to cover your hysterectomy and it’ll cost you a fortune. Forever. 
     As a business model, ( one I’ve never cared for), insurance has been broken badly. I just don’t see how it gets better unless it returns to real capitalism and free choice.
       I say that as a guy with preexisting conditions, insurance didn’t cost that much before the one size fits all mandates.
    The question I have always asked is, why can’t the private sector have the same health insurance plan’s  as the federal government employees?
    You can. It depends on if you get insurance through your employer or on your own and how much you want to spend. 

    Most employers are going to cheaper plans to save money and most people look at price when buying. 
    No you cannot. 
     If you are a federal worker you can transfer from one department to another and also transfer to another state and there’s no change in your coverage. 
     Why can’t all paper companies for instance, pool all of their employees and families and do the same?? A Georgia Pacific employee has the same as a International Paper employee etc. 
     And can go from state to state. 
    You go from federal to state job your insurance will change. From state to state it changes. 
    That’s true. I meant as a federal employee you get transferred to another state and another department nothing changes. 
    So you want universal healthcare where coverage doesn't change regardless of employment changes?  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • anglerplusanglerplus MiccoPosts: 766 Officer
    What we need is more bigger government. 
  • treemanjohntreemanjohn Posts: 5,021 Admiral
    Lostconch said:
    kellercl said:
    cadman said:
    I think a bigger issue for the left is one they won't admit. That is gun control. 
    There is zero chance of gun restrictions with a conservative court. 

    There is little chance regardless of the court leanings.  The second amendment is pretty clear.  Any major gun control will need to happen via amendments, which is a power via congress.
    Don't forget the Clinton assault weapons ban
    It could happen again with a activist court
    Wasn't Clinton is was Bush
    We’re like the piggy bank that everybody is robbing, and that ends
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 11,543 AG
    Lostconch said:
    kellercl said:
    cadman said:
    I think a bigger issue for the left is one they won't admit. That is gun control. 
    There is zero chance of gun restrictions with a conservative court. 

    There is little chance regardless of the court leanings.  The second amendment is pretty clear.  Any major gun control will need to happen via amendments, which is a power via congress.
    Don't forget the Clinton assault weapons ban
    It could happen again with a activist court
    Wasn't Clinton is was Bush
    Mr 1 term?
  • ferris1248ferris1248 Posts: 9,027 Moderator
    Yes, it was GHWB. Amazing how the blame gets spread around. :)

    "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole of the law. The rest is commentary."

    Rabbi Hillel (c20 BCE)

  • dave44dave44 Posts: 11,543 AG
    Mr read my lips?
  • LostconchLostconch Posts: 762 Officer
    kellercl said:
    Clinton wasn't a justice.  
    Of course he wasn't a justice but he tried to bypass the constitution and with an activist court he might have gotten away with it.
  • ferris1248ferris1248 Posts: 9,027 Moderator
    Sometimes you just have to shake your head and walk away.

    "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole of the law. The rest is commentary."

    Rabbi Hillel (c20 BCE)

  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,592 AG
    edited September 23 #284
    Yes, it was GHWB. Amazing how the blame gets spread around. :)
    Lostconch said:
    kellercl said:
    cadman said:
    I think a bigger issue for the left is one they won't admit. That is gun control. 
    There is zero chance of gun restrictions with a conservative court. 

    There is little chance regardless of the court leanings.  The second amendment is pretty clear.  Any major gun control will need to happen via amendments, which is a power via congress.
    Don't forget the Clinton assault weapons ban
    It could happen again with a activist court
    Wasn't Clinton is was Bush



     The Federal Assault Weapon ban was signed into law by Clinton in 1994. Bush just banned imports of semi automatic rifles, but not the weapon. 

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,592 AG
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I wonder if anyone here themselves, or someone they care about needs coverage for pre-existing conditions?

    Careful what you wish for. 
    Why?
    Supreme court will decide pre-existing doesn't have to be covered?  Not sure.  
    Correct.

    It's fine to want change, just be honest about just what that means. This matter is currently before the court, and there is currently no plan in place to address this problem should the court side with the government.  

    So, like I said, I wonder how many here, or someone they love depends on coverage for a pre-existing condition?
    Only advice I have it to lead a healthy life style and hope for good genetics.  Because healthcare isn't in the business of helping.
    At least your honest, though I wonder if you would be so consistently callous should a condition befall one of your loved ones since these conditions can manifest at even a young age.  

    I'm sure you will just stand by and explain to them that you support your insurance company dropping them, and it's just too bad. 
    Before the meddling most insurances covered most preexisting conditions, for less money. 
        Now insurance has to cover your hysterectomy and it’ll cost you a fortune. Forever. 
     As a business model, ( one I’ve never cared for), insurance has been broken badly. I just don’t see how it gets better unless it returns to real capitalism and free choice.
       I say that as a guy with preexisting conditions, insurance didn’t cost that much before the one size fits all mandates.
    The question I have always asked is, why can’t the private sector have the same health insurance plan’s  as the federal government employees?
    You can. It depends on if you get insurance through your employer or on your own and how much you want to spend. 

    Most employers are going to cheaper plans to save money and most people look at price when buying. 
    No you cannot. 
     If you are a federal worker you can transfer from one department to another and also transfer to another state and there’s no change in your coverage. 
     Why can’t all paper companies for instance, pool all of their employees and families and do the same?? A Georgia Pacific employee has the same as a International Paper employee etc. 
     And can go from state to state. 
    You go from federal to state job your insurance will change. From state to state it changes. 
    That’s true. I meant as a federal employee you get transferred to another state and another department nothing changes. 
    Same would be true for a private employer within the same company. As far as companies co-buying with other companies, many small business do this through trade groups and such. But it really makes no sense for a large employer like GP or Walmart, or any other large companies. These guys are all self insured with co-insurance to cover extremely large claims and just use a service agent to handle the paperwork for a fee, BCBS and others will handle self insurance plans. Usually the company will cap their expenses at a dollar amount then the co-insurance acts as an umbrella policy covering claims over that amount. It would be of no benefit to combined your self insurance with another company, The state and federal government work the same way, self insured with a service agent to handle the paperwork, The Fed may do their own servicing, I don't know, Florida uses BCBS the last time I looked, 

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • ferris1248ferris1248 Posts: 9,027 Moderator

    Expired Assault weapons Ban of 1994[edit]

    In January 1989 34 children and a teacher were shot in Stockton California . The gunman used a semi automatic AK-47 firearm; five children perished.[4][5][6]:10 President George H.W. Bush banned all imports of semi automatic rifles in March 1989,[7] and made the ban permanent in July 1989.[8] The assault weapons ban tried to address public concern about mass shootings while limiting the impact on recreational firearms use.[9]:1–2

    In November 1993 the ban passed the United States Senate. The author of the ban, Dianne Feinstein D-CA, and other advocates said that it was a weakened version of the original proposal.[10] In January 1994 Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, said handguns and assault weapons should be banned.[11] In May of that year former presidents Gerald FordJimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan wrote to the United States House of Representatives in support of banning "semi-automatic assault guns." They cited a 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll that found 77 percent of Americans supported a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of such weapons.[12] Rep. Jack Brooks, D-TX, then chair of the House Judiciary Committee, tried to remove the ban from the crime bill but failed.[13]

    The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly called the federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB and AWB 1994), was enacted in September 1994. The ban, including a ban on high-capacity magazines, became defunct (expired) in September 2004 per a 10-year sunset provision.[citation needed]


    Wiki.....


    "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole of the law. The rest is commentary."

    Rabbi Hillel (c20 BCE)

  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,592 AG
    edited September 23 #287

    Expired Assault weapons Ban of 1994[edit]

    In January 1989 34 children and a teacher were shot in Stockton California . The gunman used a semi automatic AK-47 firearm; five children perished.[4][5][6]:10 President George H.W. Bush banned all imports of semi automatic rifles in March 1989,[7] and made the ban permanent in July 1989.[8] The assault weapons ban tried to address public concern about mass shootings while limiting the impact on recreational firearms use.[9]:1–2

    In November 1993 the ban passed the United States Senate. The author of the ban, Dianne Feinstein D-CA, and other advocates said that it was a weakened version of the original proposal.[10] In January 1994 Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, said handguns and assault weapons should be banned.[11] In May of that year former presidents Gerald FordJimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan wrote to the United States House of Representatives in support of banning "semi-automatic assault guns." They cited a 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll that found 77 percent of Americans supported a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of such weapons.[12] Rep. Jack Brooks, D-TX, then chair of the House Judiciary Committee, tried to remove the ban from the crime bill but failed.[13]

    The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly called the federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB and AWB 1994), was enacted in September 1994. The ban, including a ban on high-capacity magazines, became defunct (expired) in September 2004 per a 10-year sunset provision.[citation needed]


    Wiki.....

    Correct, it was signed by Clinton. 

    That same ban enacted with 6 conservatives on SCOTUS would not pass a legal challenge, 

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • ferris1248ferris1248 Posts: 9,027 Moderator
    Yep, but passed by both houses on a bipartisan basis. 

    "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole of the law. The rest is commentary."

    Rabbi Hillel (c20 BCE)

  • Bimini_TwistedBimini_Twisted TampaPosts: 2,246 Captain
    At least be honest, there is quote after quote of sitting senators saying they will only nominate a judge that believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. 

    The goal is to overturn it, so stop with the nonsense that it won't change, and just accept the consequences when it does.  
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,592 AG
    At least be honest, there is quote after quote of sitting senators saying they will only nominate a judge that believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. 

    The goal is to overturn it, so stop with the nonsense that it won't change, and just accept the consequences when it does.  
    It will not be overturned. It could see further restrictions that will make it close to impossible, 

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • treemanjohntreemanjohn Posts: 5,021 Admiral
    Bush teed it up and Clinton stroked it
    We’re like the piggy bank that everybody is robbing, and that ends
  • OGFOGF Posts: 144 Deckhand
    OGF said:
    Bimini. Did you go to school in Tampa (college, grade school, high school)? 
    Why do you ask?
    I grew up in Tampa, curious if we have any of the same friends or acquaintances.  
  • jetmechjetmech On the coastPosts: 461 Deckhand
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I wonder if anyone here themselves, or someone they care about needs coverage for pre-existing conditions?

    Careful what you wish for. 
    Why?
    Supreme court will decide pre-existing doesn't have to be covered?  Not sure.  
    Correct.

    It's fine to want change, just be honest about just what that means. This matter is currently before the court, and there is currently no plan in place to address this problem should the court side with the government.  

    So, like I said, I wonder how many here, or someone they love depends on coverage for a pre-existing condition?
    Only advice I have it to lead a healthy life style and hope for good genetics.  Because healthcare isn't in the business of helping.
    At least your honest, though I wonder if you would be so consistently callous should a condition befall one of your loved ones since these conditions can manifest at even a young age.  

    I'm sure you will just stand by and explain to them that you support your insurance company dropping them, and it's just too bad. 
    Before the meddling most insurances covered most preexisting conditions, for less money. 
        Now insurance has to cover your hysterectomy and it’ll cost you a fortune. Forever. 
     As a business model, ( one I’ve never cared for), insurance has been broken badly. I just don’t see how it gets better unless it returns to real capitalism and free choice.
       I say that as a guy with preexisting conditions, insurance didn’t cost that much before the one size fits all mandates.
    The question I have always asked is, why can’t the private sector have the same health insurance plan’s  as the federal government employees?
    You can. It depends on if you get insurance through your employer or on your own and how much you want to spend. 

    Most employers are going to cheaper plans to save money and most people look at price when buying. 
    No you cannot. 
     If you are a federal worker you can transfer from one department to another and also transfer to another state and there’s no change in your coverage. 
     Why can’t all paper companies for instance, pool all of their employees and families and do the same?? A Georgia Pacific employee has the same as a International Paper employee etc. 
     And can go from state to state. 
    You go from federal to state job your insurance will change. From state to state it changes. 
    That’s true. I meant as a federal employee you get transferred to another state and another department nothing changes. 
    So you want universal healthcare where coverage doesn't change regardless of employment changes?  
    That’s not what I said. 
     I am saying, why can’t all trucking companies for instance pool all of their employees together into one insurance pool. Those employees will be covered no matter what state they are in or company they work for. 
     If a driver or mechanic leaves company A in Florida and goes to work for company B in Colorado there is no change to his health insurance. 
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,356 Admiral
    edited September 24 #294
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I wonder if anyone here themselves, or someone they care about needs coverage for pre-existing conditions?

    Careful what you wish for. 
    Why?
    Supreme court will decide pre-existing doesn't have to be covered?  Not sure.  
    Correct.

    It's fine to want change, just be honest about just what that means. This matter is currently before the court, and there is currently no plan in place to address this problem should the court side with the government.  

    So, like I said, I wonder how many here, or someone they love depends on coverage for a pre-existing condition?
    Only advice I have it to lead a healthy life style and hope for good genetics.  Because healthcare isn't in the business of helping.
    At least your honest, though I wonder if you would be so consistently callous should a condition befall one of your loved ones since these conditions can manifest at even a young age.  

    I'm sure you will just stand by and explain to them that you support your insurance company dropping them, and it's just too bad. 
    Before the meddling most insurances covered most preexisting conditions, for less money. 
        Now insurance has to cover your hysterectomy and it’ll cost you a fortune. Forever. 
     As a business model, ( one I’ve never cared for), insurance has been broken badly. I just don’t see how it gets better unless it returns to real capitalism and free choice.
       I say that as a guy with preexisting conditions, insurance didn’t cost that much before the one size fits all mandates.
    The question I have always asked is, why can’t the private sector have the same health insurance plan’s  as the federal government employees?
    You can. It depends on if you get insurance through your employer or on your own and how much you want to spend. 

    Most employers are going to cheaper plans to save money and most people look at price when buying. 
    No you cannot. 
     If you are a federal worker you can transfer from one department to another and also transfer to another state and there’s no change in your coverage. 
     Why can’t all paper companies for instance, pool all of their employees and families and do the same?? A Georgia Pacific employee has the same as a International Paper employee etc. 
     And can go from state to state. 
    You go from federal to state job your insurance will change. From state to state it changes. 
    That’s true. I meant as a federal employee you get transferred to another state and another department nothing changes. 
    So you want universal healthcare where coverage doesn't change regardless of employment changes?  
    That’s not what I said. 
     I am saying, why can’t all trucking companies for instance pool all of their employees together into one insurance pool. Those employees will be covered no matter what state they are in or company they work for. 
     If a driver or mechanic leaves company A in Florida and goes to work for company B in Colorado there is no change to his health insurance. 
    Sounds like universal healthcare to me.  I mean basically it is unionized universal healthcare bracketed by profession.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 11,543 AG
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I wonder if anyone here themselves, or someone they care about needs coverage for pre-existing conditions?

    Careful what you wish for. 
    Why?
    Supreme court will decide pre-existing doesn't have to be covered?  Not sure.  
    Correct.

    It's fine to want change, just be honest about just what that means. This matter is currently before the court, and there is currently no plan in place to address this problem should the court side with the government.  

    So, like I said, I wonder how many here, or someone they love depends on coverage for a pre-existing condition?
    Only advice I have it to lead a healthy life style and hope for good genetics.  Because healthcare isn't in the business of helping.
    At least your honest, though I wonder if you would be so consistently callous should a condition befall one of your loved ones since these conditions can manifest at even a young age.  

    I'm sure you will just stand by and explain to them that you support your insurance company dropping them, and it's just too bad. 
    Before the meddling most insurances covered most preexisting conditions, for less money. 
        Now insurance has to cover your hysterectomy and it’ll cost you a fortune. Forever. 
     As a business model, ( one I’ve never cared for), insurance has been broken badly. I just don’t see how it gets better unless it returns to real capitalism and free choice.
       I say that as a guy with preexisting conditions, insurance didn’t cost that much before the one size fits all mandates.
    The question I have always asked is, why can’t the private sector have the same health insurance plan’s  as the federal government employees?
    You can. It depends on if you get insurance through your employer or on your own and how much you want to spend. 

    Most employers are going to cheaper plans to save money and most people look at price when buying. 
    No you cannot. 
     If you are a federal worker you can transfer from one department to another and also transfer to another state and there’s no change in your coverage. 
     Why can’t all paper companies for instance, pool all of their employees and families and do the same?? A Georgia Pacific employee has the same as a International Paper employee etc. 
     And can go from state to state. 
    You go from federal to state job your insurance will change. From state to state it changes. 
    That’s true. I meant as a federal employee you get transferred to another state and another department nothing changes. 
    So you want universal healthcare where coverage doesn't change regardless of employment changes?  
    That’s not what I said. 
     I am saying, why can’t all trucking companies for instance pool all of their employees together into one insurance pool. Those employees will be covered no matter what state they are in or company they work for. 
     If a driver or mechanic leaves company A in Florida and goes to work for company B in Colorado there is no change to his health insurance. 
    Sounds like universal healthcare to me.  
    I’m confused? I thought there was insurance, and there is healthcare. Are they actually the same thing now?
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,356 Admiral
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I wonder if anyone here themselves, or someone they care about needs coverage for pre-existing conditions?

    Careful what you wish for. 
    Why?
    Supreme court will decide pre-existing doesn't have to be covered?  Not sure.  
    Correct.

    It's fine to want change, just be honest about just what that means. This matter is currently before the court, and there is currently no plan in place to address this problem should the court side with the government.  

    So, like I said, I wonder how many here, or someone they love depends on coverage for a pre-existing condition?
    Only advice I have it to lead a healthy life style and hope for good genetics.  Because healthcare isn't in the business of helping.
    At least your honest, though I wonder if you would be so consistently callous should a condition befall one of your loved ones since these conditions can manifest at even a young age.  

    I'm sure you will just stand by and explain to them that you support your insurance company dropping them, and it's just too bad. 
    Before the meddling most insurances covered most preexisting conditions, for less money. 
        Now insurance has to cover your hysterectomy and it’ll cost you a fortune. Forever. 
     As a business model, ( one I’ve never cared for), insurance has been broken badly. I just don’t see how it gets better unless it returns to real capitalism and free choice.
       I say that as a guy with preexisting conditions, insurance didn’t cost that much before the one size fits all mandates.
    The question I have always asked is, why can’t the private sector have the same health insurance plan’s  as the federal government employees?
    You can. It depends on if you get insurance through your employer or on your own and how much you want to spend. 

    Most employers are going to cheaper plans to save money and most people look at price when buying. 
    No you cannot. 
     If you are a federal worker you can transfer from one department to another and also transfer to another state and there’s no change in your coverage. 
     Why can’t all paper companies for instance, pool all of their employees and families and do the same?? A Georgia Pacific employee has the same as a International Paper employee etc. 
     And can go from state to state. 
    You go from federal to state job your insurance will change. From state to state it changes. 
    That’s true. I meant as a federal employee you get transferred to another state and another department nothing changes. 
    So you want universal healthcare where coverage doesn't change regardless of employment changes?  
    That’s not what I said. 
     I am saying, why can’t all trucking companies for instance pool all of their employees together into one insurance pool. Those employees will be covered no matter what state they are in or company they work for. 
     If a driver or mechanic leaves company A in Florida and goes to work for company B in Colorado there is no change to his health insurance. 
    Sounds like universal healthcare to me.  
    I’m confused? I thought there was insurance, and there is healthcare. Are they actually the same thing now?
    Essentially.  Since most healthcare facilities require insurance.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 11,543 AG
    edited September 24 #297
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I wonder if anyone here themselves, or someone they care about needs coverage for pre-existing conditions?

    Careful what you wish for. 
    Why?
    Supreme court will decide pre-existing doesn't have to be covered?  Not sure.  
    Correct.

    It's fine to want change, just be honest about just what that means. This matter is currently before the court, and there is currently no plan in place to address this problem should the court side with the government.  

    So, like I said, I wonder how many here, or someone they love depends on coverage for a pre-existing condition?
    Only advice I have it to lead a healthy life style and hope for good genetics.  Because healthcare isn't in the business of helping.
    At least your honest, though I wonder if you would be so consistently callous should a condition befall one of your loved ones since these conditions can manifest at even a young age.  

    I'm sure you will just stand by and explain to them that you support your insurance company dropping them, and it's just too bad. 
    Before the meddling most insurances covered most preexisting conditions, for less money. 
        Now insurance has to cover your hysterectomy and it’ll cost you a fortune. Forever. 
     As a business model, ( one I’ve never cared for), insurance has been broken badly. I just don’t see how it gets better unless it returns to real capitalism and free choice.
       I say that as a guy with preexisting conditions, insurance didn’t cost that much before the one size fits all mandates.
    The question I have always asked is, why can’t the private sector have the same health insurance plan’s  as the federal government employees?
    You can. It depends on if you get insurance through your employer or on your own and how much you want to spend. 

    Most employers are going to cheaper plans to save money and most people look at price when buying. 
    No you cannot. 
     If you are a federal worker you can transfer from one department to another and also transfer to another state and there’s no change in your coverage. 
     Why can’t all paper companies for instance, pool all of their employees and families and do the same?? A Georgia Pacific employee has the same as a International Paper employee etc. 
     And can go from state to state. 
    You go from federal to state job your insurance will change. From state to state it changes. 
    That’s true. I meant as a federal employee you get transferred to another state and another department nothing changes. 
    So you want universal healthcare where coverage doesn't change regardless of employment changes?  
    That’s not what I said. 
     I am saying, why can’t all trucking companies for instance pool all of their employees together into one insurance pool. Those employees will be covered no matter what state they are in or company they work for. 
     If a driver or mechanic leaves company A in Florida and goes to work for company B in Colorado there is no change to his health insurance. 
    Not that awful long before the insurance industry was broken to pieces, many “groups” that pooled for insurance rates cost more than getting A policy on your own.
        The total cost, to business AND employees as kind of expensive in the groups we qualified for.
          We found that we were allowed to pay for half of the policy an employee got on his own. Although we had to walk them down the path, because most people thought you could only have insurance if you were employed and they gave it to you.
        I know, people don’t understand that companies used insurance as an incentive for employees, rather than outright wages.
       I think, if business and government had decided to hide why companies were furnishing it, it wouldn’t have made all the evil bumper stickers, which is how elections work now.
         Nobody wants a long statement explaining it, if it ain’t a bumper sticker it ain’t true.
        
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 11,543 AG
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I wonder if anyone here themselves, or someone they care about needs coverage for pre-existing conditions?

    Careful what you wish for. 
    Why?
    Supreme court will decide pre-existing doesn't have to be covered?  Not sure.  
    Correct.

    It's fine to want change, just be honest about just what that means. This matter is currently before the court, and there is currently no plan in place to address this problem should the court side with the government.  

    So, like I said, I wonder how many here, or someone they love depends on coverage for a pre-existing condition?
    Only advice I have it to lead a healthy life style and hope for good genetics.  Because healthcare isn't in the business of helping.
    At least your honest, though I wonder if you would be so consistently callous should a condition befall one of your loved ones since these conditions can manifest at even a young age.  

    I'm sure you will just stand by and explain to them that you support your insurance company dropping them, and it's just too bad. 
    Before the meddling most insurances covered most preexisting conditions, for less money. 
        Now insurance has to cover your hysterectomy and it’ll cost you a fortune. Forever. 
     As a business model, ( one I’ve never cared for), insurance has been broken badly. I just don’t see how it gets better unless it returns to real capitalism and free choice.
       I say that as a guy with preexisting conditions, insurance didn’t cost that much before the one size fits all mandates.
    The question I have always asked is, why can’t the private sector have the same health insurance plan’s  as the federal government employees?
    You can. It depends on if you get insurance through your employer or on your own and how much you want to spend. 

    Most employers are going to cheaper plans to save money and most people look at price when buying. 
    No you cannot. 
     If you are a federal worker you can transfer from one department to another and also transfer to another state and there’s no change in your coverage. 
     Why can’t all paper companies for instance, pool all of their employees and families and do the same?? A Georgia Pacific employee has the same as a International Paper employee etc. 
     And can go from state to state. 
    You go from federal to state job your insurance will change. From state to state it changes. 
    That’s true. I meant as a federal employee you get transferred to another state and another department nothing changes. 
    So you want universal healthcare where coverage doesn't change regardless of employment changes?  
    That’s not what I said. 
     I am saying, why can’t all trucking companies for instance pool all of their employees together into one insurance pool. Those employees will be covered no matter what state they are in or company they work for. 
     If a driver or mechanic leaves company A in Florida and goes to work for company B in Colorado there is no change to his health insurance. 
    Sounds like universal healthcare to me.  
    I’m confused? I thought there was insurance, and there is healthcare. Are they actually the same thing now?
    Essentially.  Since most healthcare facilities require insurance.  
    Is that REALLY true?
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Posts: 20,592 AG
    kellercl said:
    So you want universal healthcare where coverage doesn't change regardless of employment changes?  

    The ACA was horrible law and did ZERO to lower medical costs.  It inspired no medical competition which is what lowers costs. In fact it added costs to medical treatment with compliance costs.  Insurance is NOT health care.  The deductibles that all of the newly insured have to pay is the same as having no health insurance but now they have to pay for insurance and still get no health care.

    The ACA deserves to be removed from the books.
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,356 Admiral
    edited September 24 #300
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I wonder if anyone here themselves, or someone they care about needs coverage for pre-existing conditions?

    Careful what you wish for. 
    Why?
    Supreme court will decide pre-existing doesn't have to be covered?  Not sure.  
    Correct.

    It's fine to want change, just be honest about just what that means. This matter is currently before the court, and there is currently no plan in place to address this problem should the court side with the government.  

    So, like I said, I wonder how many here, or someone they love depends on coverage for a pre-existing condition?
    Only advice I have it to lead a healthy life style and hope for good genetics.  Because healthcare isn't in the business of helping.
    At least your honest, though I wonder if you would be so consistently callous should a condition befall one of your loved ones since these conditions can manifest at even a young age.  

    I'm sure you will just stand by and explain to them that you support your insurance company dropping them, and it's just too bad. 
    Before the meddling most insurances covered most preexisting conditions, for less money. 
        Now insurance has to cover your hysterectomy and it’ll cost you a fortune. Forever. 
     As a business model, ( one I’ve never cared for), insurance has been broken badly. I just don’t see how it gets better unless it returns to real capitalism and free choice.
       I say that as a guy with preexisting conditions, insurance didn’t cost that much before the one size fits all mandates.
    The question I have always asked is, why can’t the private sector have the same health insurance plan’s  as the federal government employees?
    You can. It depends on if you get insurance through your employer or on your own and how much you want to spend. 

    Most employers are going to cheaper plans to save money and most people look at price when buying. 
    No you cannot. 
     If you are a federal worker you can transfer from one department to another and also transfer to another state and there’s no change in your coverage. 
     Why can’t all paper companies for instance, pool all of their employees and families and do the same?? A Georgia Pacific employee has the same as a International Paper employee etc. 
     And can go from state to state. 
    You go from federal to state job your insurance will change. From state to state it changes. 
    That’s true. I meant as a federal employee you get transferred to another state and another department nothing changes. 
    So you want universal healthcare where coverage doesn't change regardless of employment changes?  
    That’s not what I said. 
     I am saying, why can’t all trucking companies for instance pool all of their employees together into one insurance pool. Those employees will be covered no matter what state they are in or company they work for. 
     If a driver or mechanic leaves company A in Florida and goes to work for company B in Colorado there is no change to his health insurance. 
    Sounds like universal healthcare to me.  
    I’m confused? I thought there was insurance, and there is healthcare. Are they actually the same thing now?
    Essentially.  Since most healthcare facilities require insurance.  
    Is that REALLY true?
    It is around here.  Primary care or urgent care, first thing that is requested is proof of insurance.  Primary care doctors around here to not take on folks who do not have insurance.  So yes, effectively insurance and healthcare are the same thing, or at the very least directly linked.    

    I believe only federal funded hospitals are required to provide service even without insurance.  I believe this was a Reagan bill that was signed way back when.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • supratentorialsupratentorial FLPosts: 580 Officer
    edited September 24 #301
    They don't require insurance (urgent care centers), they just need to know how much to charge for the deductible if applicable. You're not getting care if you don't produce a credit card/cash.  They'll refer you to a hospital ER.
Sign In or Register to comment.